Posted
by
timothy
on Monday April 21, 2008 @07:26AM
from the ben-stein-is-smarter-than-you dept.

eldavojohn writes "Painting the current scientific community as just as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, an extended trailer of Ben Stein's "Expelled" has a lot of people (at least that I know) talking. It looks like his movie plans to encourage people to speak out if they believe intelligent design or creationism to be correct. In the trailer he even warns you that if you are a scientist you may lose your job by watching 'Expelled.' Backlash to the movie has started popping up and this may force the creationism/evolutionist debate to a whole new level across the big screen and the internet."adholden points out a site called Expelled Exposed, which asserts that 'Expelled' "is simply an anti-science propaganda film aimed at creating controversy where none exists, while promoting poor science education that can and will severely handicap American students."

Chaos != Free Will. You said yourself (basically) that it will react in a certain way, given certain input. Just because it is too wildly changing does not mean it is not predictable; we just haven't the computing power, nor information, to make such predictions.

Chaos != Free Will. You said yourself (basically) that it will react in a certain way, given certain input. Just because it is too wildly changing does not mean it is not predictable; we just haven't the computing power, nor information, to make such predictions.

Nitpick: a chaotic system is one where no leve of detail is insignificant. In order to make predictions arbitrarily far into the future, you have to know the state of the system arbitrarily accurately. However, quantum mechanics forbid you from knowing the state beyond a certain accuracy; consequently, a sufficiently chaotic system is impossible to predict arbitrarily far into the future, and no amount of computing power can change that.

Not that any of this has anything to do with free will. That particular hornet's nest results from trying to apply a philosophical concept into particle physics. That said philosophical concept is ill-defined to begin with certainly doesn't help.

This will get buried beneath other replies but maybe you will get something out of this:

Chaos' technical name is "Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions." Any time a model is constructed, initial conditions must be fed into it before it is used in a simulation; those initial conditions are based on measurements and are therefore not infinitely precise, nor completely accurate. In certain systems, like weather, a small perturbation in the initial conditions causes a drastic change in the output. These systems are informally called Chaotic, but, in reality, they are just as deterministic as any other system because for a given input they give the same output.

Weather is, after all, still just modeled by a set of equations; in fact, a passable model can be constructed with something like only 8 or 9 equations.

Apparently you need to investigate harder. There is very little argument at this point over whether Jesus existed or not. Wikipedia has an article which details historical sources used to reconstruct the existence of Jesus independent from the religious views about him:

For every single piece of evidence evolutionists bring up, a smart creationists can re-interpret that so called evidence to support what the Bible records.

But this is not science. Of course any and all observations can be re-explained to any desired explanation. But when experimental evidence consistently affirms testable hypothesis after testable hypothesis produced by a scientific theory, that theory becomes the de facto explanation.

Attempting to provide alternate explanations without testable hypotheses are not good science. Just so we're clear, every single testable hypothesis produced by creationist scientists has been refuted by experiment.

NOBODY has ever demonstrated that information can come from *any* other source than a mind.

Um, maybe not to your liking, or to your narrow definition of "information" and "mind". DNA is simply code triplets for amino acids. It could conceivably be called information, but in reality it's just a simple chemical isomorphism. Further. it has been shown experimentally that bacteria can easily re-evolve the lactase enzyme when that gene is removed.

A subtle but nuanced result of Godel's Incompleteness theorem is that what you call "minds" are no more powerful than sufficiently advanced computer programs. Creationists have produced zero evidence, beyond philosophical musings, that a mind needs anything to function other than the neural activity in the brain, and the fact that brain damage can effectively destroy a mind lends HUGE weight to the theory that a physical brain contains everything necessary to produce minds.

Further, it is quite easy to write computer programs that readily "discover" new information in mounds of raw data. This is called data mining. And spare me the creationist rhetoric about "who wrote the computer program" -- computer programs are NOT biological organisms, though it is known by computer scientists that selection over incremental changes to computer algorithms can produce more complex, adapted algorithms.

No, there is ZERO reason to even suggest that information can only be produced supernaturally. The hypothesis itself is totally unfalsifiable because we have no way of even knowing that the supernatural exists, let alone making absolutist truth-claims about it. This is pseudoscience of the worst kind.

And please stop using the term "evolutionist" if you want to be taken seriously. It's a baseless framing device used by creationists in order to try and place it on an "even keel" with creationism.

Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?

(Disclaimer --> haven't seen the movie or any trailers, the above was a genuine question for anyone who has actually seen the movie, and not an attempt to troll. Also the question should not imply that I agree with or disagree with the movie. It really is JUST a question.)

Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?

As one of the submitters (and evidently one of the few people who watched the extended trailer), you're pretty accurate there.

During the whole montage he's writing something over and over on the blackboard and it comes out to be something like "I will NOT question Darwinian Evolution." He interviews scientists and editors who have lost their jobs for printing/writing papers that claim our DNA has a 'code' with information that could not have happened in nature.

Disclaimer, I read a lot of Darwin/Dawkins/Gould so I'm pretty biased here... but I fear that the ostracized members of the scientific community will make the evolutionists look just as much like religious zealots trying to purge their ranks of people with open minds. Which is why I likened his trailer to the Spanish Inquisition.

I think that even though it's 'a waste of time,' it's bad to write these people off or fire them. I'm sure there's sound criticism against these papers and authors but Ben Stein isn't showing that in his movie if there is.

If you have friends who believe in Creationism, respect them and provide for them sound arguments against it. It may be a waste of time to you but it's complete snobbery to write them off. Ben Stein is correct that you may lose friends if you watch that movie and become polarized by it--don't let that happen!

Like a Michael Moore movie, objectivity is raped, killed, gutted and donned over a rich man's face who then can safely tell you what to think.

(1) A BBC reporter wrote a fair, non-biased article on global warming. In one paragraph he stated, "Not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by man-made actions," which is an accurate statement. Not "all" scientists think man caused the problem. Some don't even think it's a problem, saying it's just part of a natural cycle that's been happening for the last 10,000 years.

(2) The reporter published the article on the website, and immediately an email rolled-in from an environmentalist demanding that phrase be expunged.

(3) The reporter and activist went back-and-forth several times, with the activist saying, "There is no doubt," and "We may be uncertain of the cause, but we must not let the common people know that we are uncertain."

(4) The reporter refused to rewrite his article until the activist told him, "If you do not comply, I will rally my group and you will receive thousands of emails demanding the change."

An activist, acting somewhat akin to a religious zealot, took a balanced BBC article & turned it into a one-sided piece using the tactics of threats and coercion to silence any contrarian views about global warming. It does not surprise me to learn that similar tactics are being used to silence researchers and/or scientists.

A talking point among "climate sceptics" on both sides of the Atlantic has been the bizarre tale of how the BBC's chief reporter on climate change censored an item on the BBC website after being harried by a "climate activist".

On April 4 Roger Harrabin posted a story on the fact that world temperatures have not continued to rise in the past 10 years, and this year will fall to a level markedly below the average of the past two decades.

Citing the World Meteorological Organisation, Mr Harrabin accurately reported that "global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory".

This was a red rag to Jo Abbess of the Campaign Against Climate Change (Hon President, George Monbiot), who emailed Mr Harrabin demanding that he "correct" his item.

Mr Harrabin insisted that what he had written was true. There are indeed eminent climate scientists "who question whether warming will continue as predicted".

This only angered Ms Abbess further. She said it was "highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics", to "even hint that the Earth is cooling down again".

Mr Harrabin, though he has led the BBC's tireless promotion of warmist orthodoxy, stood firm. Even in the "general media", he replied, "sceptics" highlight the lack of increase since 1998: to ignore this might give the impression that "debate is being censored".

His item had, after all, added "we are still in a long-term warming trend".

This was too much for Ms Abbess. She responded that this was not "a matter of debate". He should not be quoting the sceptics "whose voice is heard everywhere, on every channel, deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth".

Unless he changed his item, she said, "I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated". She threatened to expose him by spreading his replies across the internet.

At this point the BBC's man caved in. Within minutes a new version appeared, given the same time and date as that which he had consigned to Winston Smith's memory hole.

Out went any mention of "sceptics" who question global warming. After a guarded reference to this year's "slightly cooler" temperatures, a new paragraph said that they would "still be above the average" and that we will "soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of the global warming induced by greenhouse gases".

Of course we have long known where the BBC stands on climate change. But it is good to have such clear evidence that, even when one of its reporters tries to be honest, he can be whipped back into line by a pressure group.

In the end, Ms Abbess still circulated the exchanges on the internet, to show the great victory she had won for the "emerging truth".

This is a poor example because 1) it has nothing to do with biased scientists 2) the statement in question is deliberately mis-leading.

global temperatures have not risen since 1998

This statement was widely quoted to discredit climate change/global warming but it's really just a case of cherry-picked data. It was anomalously hot in 1998, and it's deliberately mis-leading to make generalized statements from anomalous data.

It is accurate to claim that global temperatures in every year 1999-2007 have been cooler than the temperatures of 1998*. However, stating that the temperatures "have not risen since 1998" implies that temperatures have been cooling since 1998, which is not true. Temperatures from 2000 through 2005 certainly rose every year.

That is the one of the most disingenuous summary of what happened that I have seen. Here's an account [bbc.co.uk] by the reporter who absolutely denies that amended the story based on any threat, but says he amended it because he was persuaded that it could be improved.

"If you have friends who believe in Creationism, respect them and provide for them sound arguments against it. It may be a waste of time to you but it's complete snobbery to write them off. Ben Stein is correct that you may lose friends if you watch that movie and become polarized by it--don't let that happen!"

I humor their kids who still believe in Santa, I guess I can pretend that humans magically appeared one day too.

People realize that their own ego is what's preventing them from accepting evolution, right? It's the crap that you've been forced into believing since birth plus the fact that you think you're somehow different than any other animal that makes you think that you're really magical, sorry "created."

You should respect your friends who believe in Creationism and not belittle them. You should respect anyone in a proper debate and maintain a sound sense of decorum.

However, there is no reason to provide arguments for or against Creationism. None at all. Indeed, you would probably do much better if you simply stick with Common Descent, or even Abiogenesis if you wish. Provide sound reasons for this. Be prepared to patiently counter all the very tired and very old Creationist claims against these. But there is no reason whatsoever to tread in their realm. It's their job to provide sound reasons for Creationism, not everyone else's to counter it.

I am saddened both by the poor science of many Creationists and poor theology of many Evolutionists. If you repeat what you feel to be "sound arguments against [Creationism]", you may simply be parroting popular memes of Evolutionists which are easily countered by anyone more familiar with the Bible (or whatever). You may seem as ill informed to them as they do to you. This wouldn't help your goal of persuading them.

I am saddened both by the poor science of many Creationists and poor theology of many Evolutionists. If you repeat what you feel to be "sound arguments against [Creationism]", you may simply be parroting popular memes of Evolutionists which are easily countered by anyone more familiar with the Bible (or whatever).

After years of skimming talk.origins, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of vocal creationists don't know jack about what the Bible actually says.

And what is "good theology". Is there any theology in the entire world that is based on evidence rather than someone's interpretation of a mythical tradition?

And what is "good theology". Is there any theology in the entire world that is based on evidence rather than someone's interpretation of a mythical tradition?

Even to an atheist, there is definitely good theology in the same sense that there is good philosophy, good scholarship, and good advice.

I'm both an atheist and a skeptic, and after I got over being a prick about it, I could see that there were a lot of smart, sincere religious people out there doing their very best to lead good lives. And they often feel that the creationists, the religious warmongers, and the nutty god-pushers are guilty of twisting theology for their own sinful ends.

Whatever you think of the core beliefs of a given religion, the world's religious traditions preserve a great deal of pragmatic advice on how to conduct one's life. They provide a structure for examination of what it means to be human, and what kind of world we should strive to make. And they fill a spiritual need that, even if you and I don't have it, the bulk of humanity does.

"There are things for which the debate has been conducted and there is a settled position. Things like the world is not flat and that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. People who debate those points don't have open minds, they're just stupid."

-birdmanesq

Pretty much sums it up. There's no "debate", only stupid people making movies or otherwise flapping their yaps.

Ben Stain is motivated by the same thing Michael Moore is, profit. Discourse on science doesn't happen on a movie screen, though it might happen at a lecture in a movie theatre.

To briefly (and probably not completely accurately) summarize: 1) one guy did get fired, but that's because he wasn't getting published or graduating many students. Sorry you didn't perform. 2) a guy who said "I was fired" from the smithsonian wasn't actually fired (and was never employed there anyway), still has access to the collections and an office there, etc. They did move him to a different office, so the fact that he said "they changed the locks on my office" is true. Even worse, this is the guy who, in his last month as editor of a scientific journal (not because he was fired, but because his time was going to be up anyway) basically took it upon himself to wave a publication into print without peer review, saying that he was the only qualified editor, when there were others who could have and should have been able to review this paper.

So the ID advocates portrayed here seem to be acting in deceitful or unethical ways, and then this movie is compounding their deceit.

There are a lot of interesting questions still to be answered in evolutionary theory; rehashing the same battles over and over again with these people is a distraction at best.

So the ID advocates portrayed here seem to be acting in deceitful or unethical ways, and then this movie is compounding their deceit.

Welcome to America, 2008. Deceit and a lack of ethics raise concerns among people who post comments on blogs and news sites, but not necessarily among a majority of people who vote and write letters to their legislatures. We've arrived in an era in which there are two truths: right-wing truth and left-wing truth. You can pick either. Each has its own dedicated news and opinion services dedicated to it, so regardless of which one you pick, you can safely pretend the other doesn't exist until a talking head points out how silly the other side looks.

Here's the catch: most of the emotional advantages are firmly on the side of right-wing truth. Think of what feels good and it's true. America is the best country on earth, and everything we do is therefore moral. Oil production will never peak. The environment will take care of itself regardless of what we do, because it was put there for us by God. What industry lobbyists say about the climate is more correct than what most scientists say, because the scientists are communists. Human beings are special: not a type of animal that evolved along with other animals, but higher beings on a pedestal above animals.

See? Emotionally the right wing is far more satisfying. If you pick right-wing truth, there's no need to apply any scrutiny to it, and it provides a mirror of left wing truth in every respect, aside from a lack of creditability its adherents don't seem to miss.

I can respect people who do very stupid things, but that does not mean I respect the stupid things people think or do. I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but I don't respect your invisible sky-god. And if you honestly believe the world was created in six days some six thousand years ago, there had better be something else about you that is damned impressive if you want my respect.

I am willing to discuss these things sanely, civilly, even non-confrontationally, but I do still find creationism to be laughable.

But what Stein points out is that debate gets stifled instead of debated. I think he picked a poor subject as an example, but that sort of behavior in academia certainly isn't limited to ID, as a perusal of FIRE's website [thefire.org] should show.

We're talking about scientific debate, and there is no scientific debate about ID. It's not a scientific theory, therefore there can be no scientific debate. It doesn't belong in the classroom, it belongs in the church. It's a theological debate between people who take the Genesis story literally and those who take it as a metaphor.

Yes, because if we can get 50% of the world to believe, the devil wins! Yay!

What the hell is going through your pointy little head when you suggest that "evolutionists", (why not "proofists" or "rightists"?) have an agenda. Like, the main organization sends us a card with monthly talking points when it hands out our anti-god assignments?

You even misunderstood the post you replied to.

It mentioned those who take Genesis literally (creationists) and those who think it's a metaphor (ID - god created the world but not in a literal week). You probably take it as a metaphor.

If there was even one IDer (or creationist - but they know they aren't scientific - their honesty is refreshing) with the answers to these basic question, they might get a modicum of respect.

But unfortunately, to an IDer, "evidence" is a good insult you can shout at a real thinking person. Go get your sign, dumbass, your team needs your research skills on the street corner.

The shame of all of this is that you don't even understand the big words. Here's a rundown. You have no proof. The bible isn't. You don't even have a theory, as to have a theory you have to have an idea of what could make your idea wrong.

Watching religious people "think" is like watching the tobacco industry lobby. It's not about facts in any way, but about what masses of them want facts to be. Popular answers spread through the group like wildfire, but nobody is willing to support anything with citations or arguments. Also, your main defense is to point out potential failures in the opposition and hope it distracts from your lack of proof. You're far more concerned with the appearance of being right than any actual correctness.

Spend all the time you want showing that many people believe ID. It's not like to makes it look better - it merely gives us a better idea of Scientology's potential user-base. Science and truth aren't popularity based. I don't need the support of a herd of cows to speak the truth - you're all idiots and you have no proof. Not even the hope of proof.

I know that's what they teach you in 4th grade, but as is often the case, it's oversimplified to the point of being absurd.

We commonly depict the Earth as moving around Sol, but that's merely a frame of reference -- Sol could be just as accurately described as orbiting Earth. With both the moon and the sun orbiting Earth, it's not a huge leap to assume that other astronomical bodies do the same. It's not actually true, but it's a logical, intuitive assumption and it takes some relatively sophisticated observations to disprove. Until Galileo, no one had made those observations, and therefore the prevailing model, even outside the political influence of the church, and in full accordance with valid scientific observations, was one of an Earth-centric universe.

Copernicus did model Sol at the center of the universe, but he choose to do so purely for aesthetic reasons -- he had not actually made any observations to disprove a Earth-centered universe, he just liked the way the Sol-centered universe worked out when he modeled it. And while there's some validity to "the simplest solution is often the best" it's a long way from actual science.

The church definitely worked to suppress ideas outside of their line of thinking. And it did act against Galileo, though his astronomical observations are only a footnote in those proceedings -- they wanted to silence him for questioning church dogma (and thus endangering the church's political power) in general, largely outside the arena of science. I'm not saying they liked the church liked his model or wanted to spread it around, but it's hardly the reason they placed him under arrest.

And yes, I keep using "universe" here in the sense that we would commonly use "solar system" nowadays. But I think it's important to point out the difference in perspective that these people had.

To understand biology, you absolutely must understand the fact of evolution, at least on a micro scale. You don't have to believe it's the origin of species, but there are certain parts of it that you must at least accept, or you won't understand biology.

if someone put such a disclaimer in about Einstein's relativity I'd applaud them, or Newton's gravity

But, you see, no one does. And I imagine most people wouldn't put such a disclaimer on these things -- only Evolution gets the "just a theory" stickers.

Your example of Newtonian gravity isn't entirely valid -- Newtonian gravity was disproved by Einstein's Relativity. Do you see similar stickers on Relativity?

That, and Newtonian gravity is still used. It has not been wholly discarded -- Relativity is a refinement of Newtonian physics. If you look at the equations, Newtonian gravity is still there, just with a few additional terms multiplied in that usually end up being close enough to 1 that we can ignore them.

Are scientists supposed to be neutral unbiased parties?

No.

Science itself is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. But a scientist absolutely is allowed to have an opinion, so long as they don't pretend that opinion is science.

For the most part modern scientists are good about being neutral, except when you bring up the ol' Evolution.

Because evolution is generally widely accepted in the scientific community, and if you actually read up on it, it makes sense, and it has been tested. It's pretty much as solid as gravity.

So when someone questions it, there are generally three possibilities:

They don't quite understand it yet.

They don't want to understand it; they'd rather believe the world is six thousand years old (which means they're also going against geology).

They have genuinely found something wrong with evolutionary theory. Which would suggest that we should revise the theory, not throw it away entirely.

Which seems more likely?

Yes, it could be #3 -- but that is more like Einstein refining Newton's theory. No one's suggesting that gravity be thrown out, and we go back to Aristotle's (I think) theories of things falling because they are "earthly", and stars not falling because they are "heavenly".

The reason you get this response is that almost every argument against Darwin is exactly like the arguments against Galileo. We all know how that turned out.

Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?

Actually, this is just Ben Stein's great way of capitalizing on fears and preconceptions of the population. He literally produced a film that caters to the ignorant and the blindly faithful... without even a shred of evidence that he himself believes it.

The movie will do great harm to the already eroded image of science and scientists in the U.S., despite presenting very flimsy evidence in the Michael Moore style of film-making (i.e. gross misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies, sprinkled with a dose of misplaced truth to prevent it from being rejected outright).

Stein actually told the people he interviewed for the movie that he was making a completely different film (philosophy, I think). This is grossly unethical, but par for the course for current media. Frankly, I just didn't expect Stein to follow suit.

As a scientist who believes in God, I am appalled at this film, and I think Stein should be ashamed of himself. Maybe if not for asshole exercises such as this, people would calm down and realize that unless you take religious texts literally, they address questions that are incompatible with science, and thus cannot possibly be in conflict with the latter.

Are we using the same definition of bias? Having a strong opinion is not bias, if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence. Bias is starting with the conclusion and selectively gathering the evidence to support it.

Don't apologize for the snark; it's actually a very valid question. There are examples of filtering and interpreting evidence so as to favor a given viewpoint in the publishing of even ostensibly peer-reviewed scientific papers, but these examples are nearly always driven by money, not by ideology: a pharmaceutical company or an oil company or a tobacco company funds research on a new drug or on climate change or on smoking, and darned if that research doesn't support the company's position.

However, the idea that there's an irrational, conspiratorial bias against challenges to the theory of evolution is, to be very polite, dubious. Researchers who cast serious doubt on evolutionary theory using the scientific method, producing results that were consistent and repeatable, would surely get a whole lot of flak at first -- but they'd eventually be given Nobel prizes. That's the kind of thing that makes careers. The kind of thing that destroys careers is making extraordinary claims that fall apart under testing -- or, as in the case of intelligent design, making extraordinary claims that can't be tested at all.

In a lot of ways, ID uses the same "logic" as any classic conspiracy theory: searching the "accepted truth" for any (apparently) unexplained gaps and shrieking Ah-HA! This disproves it all! Trying to fight these theories is a tedious and dispiriting proposition; you often have to try to bring your opponent up to speed on knowledge they'd need to have (and accept) to examine the evidence critically, and they're far from a receptive audience. And even if you manage that, there's going to be another "gap" they can find. And another. And if you have to eventually try and explain that data which isn't accounted by the theory is not the same as predicting a specific outcome which turns out to be wrong? Good luck with that.

Bzzz. You might want to take a moment to read Thomas S Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which describes how some scientists WILL try to suppress contrary theories, as a way to protect their own career.

As example, scientists once thought the planets moved in perfectly-circular orbits, but when observations showed that was not true, these same scientists refused to believe the data. It took several years (and the death of the stubborn scientists) for a new generation to propose ellipitical orbits. The refusal to accept new data is called "protecting your paradigm" aka your belief system, even in the face of facts that challenge it.

Scientists often do this to protect their lifelong work and/or career, rather than admit they are wrong.

Actually, that was a scientist, Galileo, who didn't have the math to explain elliptical orbits and fudged his data. Since even the idea that planets moved around the sun was very unpopular at the time, and Galileo didn't have any peers, the peer review process didn't actually exist to check his work. When Newton shot this down, nobody complained.

Kuhn has been exaggerated, and even his original claims do not fit the history of science well. Scientists tend to be conservative, and wait for strong evidence in support of a new theory so that they don't get taken in by the fringe. What Kuhn does not mention, of course, is that fringe theories that are just dead wrong outnumber valid theories a hundred to one, strongly justifying this approach (ID is an example of the far lunatic fringe.) His story of multiple Copernican Revolutions is also wrong. A Copernican Revolution occurs when a valid scientific theory arrives which brings a solid foundation to further research. There is at most one in each scientific field of research--examples include the original work of Copernicus (which became the basis for Galileo, Newton, and eventually Einstein), Darwin's theory of evolution, plate tectonics, and DNA. Prior to these advances the field is a chaotic mash of data with no means of organization, only guesswork. Einstein's work was not a Copernican revolution, but a refinement of existing physics into the very large and small scales. He did not prove Newton wrong.

What makes Kuhn so popular is the narrative of the lone genius who, in David and Goliath fashion, takes on the powerful and corrupt empire to change the world. According to this narrative, science is just a majority opinion defended by political maneuvering. This is utter bullshit. The fastest way to win a Nobel prize and establish your career is to prove other scientists wrong--but for that, you need evidence. ID doesn't have any. Not a single scrap. ID isn't a scientific theory, but a well financed marketing campaign masquerading as one, presenting this narrative and a soggy heap of postmodernist drivel to encourage and exploit ignorance.

Having worked with a great number of scientists in my life, I would not note them for lack of bias or neutrality. In fact, I'd say scientists are noted for their strong opinions and personal bias'.

Of course scientists have strong opinions, and of course they have biases. This isn't a problem. Einstein, for example, was a fierce opponent of quantum mechanics -- the 'spooky action at a distance' doesn't fit with c as a speed limit.

But the fact is that one of the primary goals of just about every scientist is to challenge or overturn the conventional wisdom. And to so in a way that is observable and disprovable. You don't get a ticket to Stockholm by echoing the community.

Similarly, every true scientist values being proven wrong, because that is what advances our collective knowledge. A scientist who who has never been wrong, or who doesn't appreciate being proven wrong, is a poor scientist indeed.

But on the same note, challenges to established scientific principles must themselves be scientific, and that is the problem here. This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science. If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science.

I am skeptical about evolution. The thing is that right now the majority of evidence is that evolution is real and explains a lot about how life has changed over the history of the planet.I am skeptical about creationism. So far every talk I have listened to on creationism has had more error in science than I can shake a stick at.

If you are not skeptical then it isn't science. If you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong then it isn't science.

As far as global climate change from human CO2 production. Yes I am very skeptical. I don't think they have nearly enough data to prove it. The way the climate change faithful keep saying this or that disaster or storm was caused by global warming really doesn't help. Snow in Bagdad this winter and record cold and snow in many places this winter also are interesting data points.Heck I am even for cutting CO2 production just in case because frankly as the old saying goes "It can't hurt".But the people that claim that Man made global warming is a proven fact are also spouting off bad science.Being skeptical is a good thing and good science.

Actually, there is a good bit of symmetry here. I often say that the Intelligent Design(ID) people admire how the Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) people have pushed their cause. If you believe in the scientific method [wikipedia.org] you have no problems with anyone challenging a theory. In fact, you'd welcome it because it either disproves the theory or makes it more accurate.

Evolution has advanced in it's "completeness" as a theory because of many challenges made to it over the years, and those challenges have helped science immensely. Just because a theory is wideley accepted however, does not mean that it is correct. Prior to Plate Tectonics being widely accepted it was scorned and rejected [wikipedia.org] by leading scientists who had careers built on "old science." This incidentally what the subject line of this post refers to: subduction is one continental shelf sliding under another, and orogeny is mountain building (of course since this is/. let me point out IANAG).

Yet because the heart of Geophysics is still physics, these great scientists were able to accept challenges and look at the new theory and say "yes -- this fits better." And that's what's awesome (and to me holy) about SCIENCE. You can challenge ANY assertion, and if your model is better, it will persuade people. I'm sure some physicist can help me out and show how the theory of gravity has changed massively since Newton -- even though a lay person would say "yeah, I get gravity."

So here's where Expelled and ID fall down -- we KNOW their theory. What is being taught in schools about evolution is mostly demonstrable. We can show evolution in anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria, that directly impacts humans and health. ID is being taught in the appropriate places --
houses of worship -- where challenges are heresy. Yet in teaching SCIENCE in schools we want to teach that every assertion CAN be challenged and should be observable. That's what science is -- an attempt to understand the universe through observation and experimentation. If someone wants to challenge something in science and can bring legitimate observations to the table, they should be welcomed for the CRITICAL (pun intended) role they play in the process. ID has to reject the scientific method, science always looks for challenges to make the model more accurate -- but ID is by definition perfectly accurate already, and cannot be challenged.

I support everything the MMCC people want as an end result -- I'd like to see us embrace alternative energy, stop burning fossil fuels and generally be more conscious of the impact we have on the planet. I also think that there is a real harm being done to science when people with legitimate complaints about the SCIENCE of MMCC are treated as pariahs. Although I tend to think that MMCC is real, and there is certainly no harm in proceeding to curb our carbon emissions, I welcome the legimate claims of people who think that solar cycles are responsible, or that this period is not particularly warm on a geological chart of temperatures. These are legitimate scientific ideas based on observation and empirical data. MMCC as a theory will gain much more respect when it embraces challenges, instead of treating them in the same way ID treats challenges -- by throwing the scientific method under a bus. On the other hand, if the MMCC people do succeed in making challenges to their "science" become heresy, the ID people will be sure to take notes in how that happened.

More importantly it's that beginning 'rds' that is a dead giveaway. That's Yahoo hosting a Re-Direct Script (RDS). If you see [yahoo.com] after a link, fair warning that you should check the very beginning, they could be hosting a redirect to something very very harmful. Honestly, I'm shocked that Yahoo would do that but I guess what ever brings in the ad/referral cash, huh?

He's missing the issue. The truth is, I believe some form of "intelligent design." But whether or not I believe it or a billion people believe it is irrelevant. Intelligent design, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, ad infinitum, it's NOT SCIENCE and should not be taught as science or as an alternative to evolution.

On the other hand, if they want to teach it in a Religious Studies type class, I'm all for it. Go for it. That's precisely where it belongs.

I would posit that Philosophy would be another class that it would be appropriate in (beyond the narrow religious studies classes).
However I also don't see the harm in pointing out in the science class that "while evolution is the current leading scientific theory by a landslide, there are other non-scientific theories out there. If you want to learn about them take class X in the philosophy / theology course line."

My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design)/damnit I fed the troll.

Your use of the term "theory" in this context shows that you have no idea what it means for something to be a scientific Theory. People who call intelligent design a "theory" are simply trying to convince your average Joe Sixpack that it is equally as plausible and on the some footing as the scientific Theory of Evolution. It is not. As far as I know, no other Theories currently exist to explain the diversity of life. No one is hiding other theories, because there aren't any. There are some fairy tales that were meant to try and explain it several thousand years ago, which in no way resemble a theory of any sort.

My View: by hiding the fact that other theories exist you only harm the credibility of the leading theory once the individual finds out about the other views. (as a general rule, not just to be applied to evolutionary biology / intelligent design)/damnit I fed the troll.

ID is a scientific theory? No. It's someones acid trip while watching a movie about an acid trip. It has no scientific merit, it's not falsifiable and the hypothesis (See? I am not using the word theory.) is inherently false for a simple question that leads to an infinite number of designers: Who designed the designer?. Something no ID proponent can answer.

ID is a hypothesis with *ZERO* evidence.Evolution is a scientific theory with *MOUNTAINS* of evidence.

Let's not mix up one of our best scientific theories with some wild idea someone pulled out of their ass^H^H^H^H^Hbible.

In order for theory to be valid, there must be a test that can be applied to it that would disprove it and it must fail that test. Last time I posted about this, I got all sorts of answers like "just the fact that we are here today proves that we evolved". People assume that we all started from some pool of primodial soup and all life came from that, however, scientists cannot recreate the primodial soup. Neither can they create life from nothing. As far as intelligent design being a theory, it is easily observable that there is order in the universe. Everything that happens in the universe is subject to observable laws. To say that these laws came about by random chance is amazingly short sighted.

Well, first off, you have just shifted your argument from evolution to all observable natural laws. You are also mixing up several things that are not necessarily related; the origin of life (e.g., primordial soup) is a different topic than evolution. Let's just concentrate on evolution for now.

Evolution could be falsified by a single fossil turning up in the "wrong place" in the fossil record. With millions and millions of fossils found, not a single one has been found "in the wrong place" for evolution to be true. In addition, the theory of evolution has predicted transitional life forms that have then been found in the correct geological time frame in the fossil record.

Now, to address your primordial soup comment - the fact that there is not a known answer for this does not necessarily imply that "God did it". Your "God of the Gaps" argument is quite traditional, and typically becomes more and more desperate as continuous increases in scientific knowledge make the gaps smaller and smaller. Read some books, take some science classes, and educate yourself on this issue, because you appear to be talking out of your ass at the moment.

So he's a comedian, a writer, a white-house speech writer, a law professor and a believer in intelligent design.

Fine, another one of those scientist who think that being a scientist, they can have a scientific opinion on any subject out there.

He's a lawyer, he can have scientific stances on law (if that's possible anyway... I've always wondered why law is considered a science), but his opinion on intelligent design and evolution means diddly squat.

Feel free to believe in an Old Man in the Sky, and to embrace ID. Just don't forget to mention that scientific evidence points the other way.

Actually if you watch the film Stein does not necessarily believe in ID. He simple is wondering why so many scientists are so religious about evolution.

He is posing questions like, Why do we teach kids the difference between laws, and theory and then act like evolution is a law?

Evolution is really good at explaining how butterflies change color overtime, it does not explain how you get from paramecium to human does that not leave room for some alternate theories?

In what way does the presents of evolution rule out an intelligent designer; might that designer have included an evolutionary mechanism?

All Stein is doing is asking scientists to act like it. They should acknowledge the weak spots in any theory and look to finding the explanations. Stein's documentary could have been about a variety of other subjects. He is simply saying don't close the books until all the facts are in. There is nothing wrong with that its good science. Imagine if people had decided special relativity worked so well we need not bother look at string theory?

Its the same thing. Anyone who takes issue with Steins message is being pretty petty and short sighted.

All Stein is doing is asking scientists to act like it. They should acknowledge the weak spots in any theory and look to finding the explanations. Stein's documentary could have been about a variety of other subjects. He is simply saying don't close the books until all the facts are in. There is nothing wrong with that its good science. Imagine if people had decided special relativity worked so well we need not bother look at string theory?

Except scientists are looking at the weak spots and trying to find explanations in evolutionary theory. There's still a lot we don't know about yet and there are a lot of interesting questions that remain to be answered. On the other hand, rehashing these old debates is not very productive.

Its the same thing. Anyone who takes issue with Steins message is being pretty petty and short sighted.

Except he's being misleading and his goal isn't to get scientists to look at ID, it's to get the public to think that they can't trust those evil godless scientists, because all they're doing is agenda-pushing. If you can get people to doubt objective facts, there's no limit to what you can do!

"Evolution" is as much a law as the first law of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics are theories in exactly the same way as evolution is. And anyone who spends any time in science knows this. It's all a work in progress. Do you know what evolutionary biologists do? They poke holes in evolution! They spend their whole time finding weaknesses, writing them up, discussing them, and trying to find better theories. That's science. By swallowing what the film says, you're giving the creationists - who have been rehashing the same arguments since the 1980s with no modification - a free ride.

Its not just "Darwinists" that force their anti-Jesus dogma on the education system. I had a similar experience in my childhood.

Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say thats its 10 * 2 * "pi"!

But what is this pi? They can't even define it;its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3 [biblegateway.com], I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far to young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.

The point is that the ridiculous "pi equals three because the Bible says so" is just as bad an example of cherry-picking as the folks who will quote specific out-of-context Leviticus quotes to "prove" that the Bible is against homosexuality, or point to Genesis and say it "proves" that the universe was created in 6000 years.

You say everyone recognizes that "pi = 3" was not the point of the Bible, and yet there are thousands of Biblical literalists out there who do that exact same thing with whichever passages they find convenient, while hand-waving away those parts that contradict what they want to believe.

The PI=3 thing is much like the earth being flat... something that no one ever seriously advocated, yet is often brought up as "proof" of the Bible being useful for proving the absurd.

No one has ever seriously advocated the earth is flat? There's some papal writing you might want to check for that one. A literal reading does require it (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, Job 38:13, Job 37:3) but let's use another example. What about that the earth circles the sun (heliocentric model)? A literal reading of the Bible requires a geocentric viewpoint. See Joshua 10:12-13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, Psalms 19:4-6, etc etc.

Scientists were persecuted for putting forth a heliocentric model despite scientific proof. Indeed, there are those who still advocate a geocentric viewpoint [google.com]. People got over it. In every developed part of the world except the US, evolution is not controversial; their people got over it Its time we did the same. Evolution is fact.

Fine; disregarding the PI=3 thing, and any discussion of homosexuality in the Bible, the ID debate still boils down to taking the Bible (specifically the origin of man) literally versus taking it as an allegory. I still see strict literalists arguing that the universe was created in exactly 144 hours, six thousand years ago. I see people swearing that the Earth literally ceased rotating for a day in Joshua 10:13, and that all humanity except Noah and his wife were obliterated in the Great Flood (thus making every one of us their descendants and incredibly incestuous to boot).

Heck, you get the argument that all humanity on Earth began from Adam and Eve, despite the fact that Cain is marked by God so that any man who finds him will kill him on sight (Genesis 4:15), leaves to settle in the Land of Nod, and in the very next verse (Genesis 4:17) he "knew his wife". His wife? Where the heck did a wife come from? Were Adam and Eve especially bizz-ay? Did God go around randomly creating other humans, and if so, why aren't they written about in Genesis? You'd think the dawn of the human race was important enough that God would make sure to include a heck of a lot more detail.

My point is that you can't decide that some parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and others are not -- never mind the fact that what we consider "the Bible" today has been translated and retranslated, by people both benign and malicious. One can argue that every single translator was somehow imbued with the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the original authors and thus produced an infallible translation... but that opens a whole new can of worms, as we have dozens of translations of the Bible right now that occasionally contradict one another.

And if you aren't going to be super literal about the origin of man... then there's no argument. It's all semantics. God could easily have designed the Big Bang and the formation of the cosmos and the evolution of life to work out exactly as it has.

In fact, that makes far more sense to me; why would He create this complex universe with its incredible mesh of physical laws, only to break them with miracles and supernatural occurrences? I'd think He'd work within the confines of what He had created.

Dawkins and many others notwithstanding, evolution doesn't disprove god(s) or mandate atheism. What it does do is undermine (very thoroughly) an argument for god(s) that used to be a 'slam dunk': the 'argument from complexity in the biological world'.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand the distinction, and people like Dawkins don't help. Many religious types treat 'discounting an argument for god(s)' the same as 'advancing an argument against god(s)', and go ballistic. But it's important to note the difference. There's still room to believe in god(s) even if you accept the ridiculously overwhelming evidence that evolution happened and is happening. (I don't believe in god(s), FWIW, but many people do.)

Stein and his ilk really remind me of the worst features of Ned Flanders sometimes. "Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"

How many times do we have to say it, SCIENCE is not about BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want but in a science class (or academic institution) and officially (the government position) the thinking should be one of reason, evidence and demonstration of understanding. Belief has no place.

Remember if intelligent design is correct then it can be explained, demonstrated and then analysed further. Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spagetti Monster is made up of.

This whole debate seems pretty strange to European eyes. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist Bible believing evangelical Christian, but, in Britain, people like me take the view that Genesis describes the evolutionary process pretty well. Although many Evangelicals support Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism, there's little opposition within Christian circles to full acceptance of the scientific explanation of the origins of life.

Between this and support for a right-wing social and foreign policy agenda, I sometimes wonder if American evangelicals read the same Bible that I do.

Isn't it ironic that a whole generation of religious folks are doing nothing more than routing their kids into a backwater. Suspicion of science just means their children will distrust science and math and be shuttled, therefore, into a legion of burger flippers. Teaching your kids that Intelligent Design is the right answer is as close to child abuse as I can imagine.

They ignore you because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Then they mock you because you expect to be taken seriously without putting in the work to become informed.

Then they fight you, because you won't go away until you've had your fight, and ingrained in your thinking, so deeply you don't know it's there, is the notion that might makes right.

Then you win, because there are so many ignorant, lazy, belligerent people that sooner later sensible people, who want to get something accomplished with their lives, will sooner or later give up on picking sense out of your nonsense.

There's so much I would like to say here, and I rather doubt that I'll get it all said, but I'll make a stab at it.
In the first place, I haven't seen the movie, so can't really comment on Stein's take. However, I have looked at the "sociology" of the Evolution/Intelligent Design/Creationism debate a fair amount, and what I see disturbs me from all sides.
One major concern I have is the elevation of Darwinian natural selection as a means of species creation to an unrealistic importance. I just don't see why it's so important in and of itself. One could certainly be a competent physician, for example, and not believe in Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism). It seems to me that one could even be a quite competent practitioner of any of the biological sciences (other than the various sorts of paleontology) without necessarily agreeing with Darwinism. Yet, we are constantly told that a failure to teach Darwinism at the high school level will destroy science education as we know it and result in a US population that is hopelessly ignorant of all science, etc. etc.
I just don't buy it. Bluntly, I can scarcely think of a job where a belief in Darwinism is necessary. On the other hand, we have school systems that literally teach absolutely no information science, computer science, etc. etc., and people graduating from college who literally don't know the different between a byte and a gigabyte. It's hard for me to see why this ONE THING is so vitally important, when it has virtually no practical application and there are scientific topics with enormous practical application that go untaught.
Could the real problem be social or (speak softly now) political? It seems to me that that is exactly the case. The extraordinary efforts put forth by various scientific bodies to defend Darwinism from all criticism strike me as a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk fear that the Scope's trial will happen all over again. This isn't about science--it's about continuing the Enlightenment project of supplanting all sources of Meaning (capitalization intended) with Scientific Meaning.
That doesn't mean that I think that Darwinism is wrong. I actually think that it's as right as you're going to get within the boundaries that it sets itself. But I certainly don't think that the loss of Darwinism would destroy American education or anything along those lines. So... people... GET A GRIP.
My $0.02.

One well known evolutionary scientist P.Z. Myers was queueing up to see a preview screening of this movie, when he was singled out of line and asked to leave the cinema [richarddawkins.net]. So he was expelled from Expelled, presumably because he would write it up for the trash it was. A double irony was he was standing next to Richard Dawkins who was apparently not recognized and allowed in.

He's totally right, science in academia should be more about discussing what you believe and less about what science people have found out after observation and experimentation.

For example the other day when my chemistry teacher told me that material stuff is made of atoms, I really couldn't believe him. I think I should have been given the right back then to discuss with them about my theory that everything is conformed by milk derivatives.

I shouldn't really have to prove my theory or even get the smallest amount of evidence pointing to the certainty of my theory before being given the opportunity to have kids at school discuss about it.

And all what I said in this post is the truth, because if you read this post you may lose your job.

so what underlies an otherwise intelligent religious person to resist evolution?

we need to confront the real underlying psychological issue here: faith in humanity

religious folk view something like evolution as a path to meaninglessness, nihilism, cynicism. your typical secular humanist expresses their faith in mankind directly: there is no conflict between evolution and being positive about mankind's future

but religious folk's minds don't work like that. for a religious person, their faith in humanity is indirect. it is tied up in symbols and code words, like god. god is really just a psychological manifestation of an abstract concept: an ideal man, what humanity strives for, progress

and around an idea like god, you get all of these related mythologies that again, are really just props for retaining and reaffirming and indirect positivistic faith in society and mankind

so what really divides the secular humanists and the religious folk are those with no faith in mankind. when you look at something like evolution, and you consider your traditional religious symbology that enforces your faith, you are confronted with a crisis. and you look at some of the nihilism in the world. not the atheists who believe in mankind, but the cynical, empty, boorish loud kind of atheist who sees no meaning in life, and you react to that. and so you react to evolution: it seems to be a path to this sort of empty faithless indolent nihilism

in other words, the negative reaction to evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk is really a reaction against the idea of meaningless in life

this is the psychological issue which underlies the rejection of evolution by otherwise intelligent religious folk. and so the real way you defeat their resistance is by criticizing faithless nihilism. those who use evolution as a story about how mankind is meaningless, pointless: you attack and reject them

you talk about evolution, AND you talk about faith in humanity and you talk about evolution as reinforcing meaning, not destroying it. and in such a way, you draw down the resistance of intelligent religious folks to evolution, by demonstrating to them that evolution is not a threat to the idea of faith, that plenty of secular humanists with faith in mankind can also beleive in evolution, without some sort of psychological dissonance

First, I would like to say that I a fan of Ben Stein. But this movie is blemish in what I think is an outstanding career. I will explain.I too have asked the same exact questions that your trailers ask. But I do have answers. I've followed the I.D. vs evolution debate, and I come down firmly on the evolution side. But that is not what you ask about...

Scientific inquiry first clashed with religion when a man innocently attempted to determine the motion of the heavenly bodies in an effort to determine God's intent. This man was Newton, but he started a long battle of God giving up ground to science. For as long as science is practiced, the domain of God has reduced. It is likely that at some time in the future that we have "God" reduced to the fundamental constants of the universe. (Only in terms of a mechanical sense, not spiritual) This can only be the case if scientific inquiry is allowed to continue.

The problem I have, and as it seems schools (public and private), and government have as well with I.D. people being key in scientific discovery , is that it threatens further scientific discoveries. The threat is not intentional, or, at least I believe in most cases it is not intentional (but the Dover school district it was quite intentional). The reason why it threatens scientific discovery, was shown in the Dover court case. The cellular structure that was heralded as 'irreducible' was actually shown to be reducible. Once the researcher was content with the idea that the structure was irreducible, scientific inquiry ended. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in projects funded by public or private grants. I fear if I.D. was ever accepted as a viable answer, all sufficiently complicated systems would be described as I.D. and we'd throw our arms up and declare ourselves done. I could imagine a time when all things are attributed to I.D. and such a time scares me.

I do not think that all professors who suppose I.D. would be haphazard, but it is not a risk we do not have to take. The question is if there is room for I.D. and a mind that is willing to probe deeper. Can someone have reverence and probe deeper? Newton did, so it is possible, but I doubt all of the I.D. proponents could.

The biggest failure of I.D. is to factor in the value of processes. And really this is what it boils down to. With I.D. there is no process, and it is all design. With science it is all process and no design. For the past 400 years, we've had nearly every process that has been attributed to God be re-attributed to a process. The question then is God a process, or is God designed? If God is a process then there can be no irreducible complexity, and I.D. effectively eats itself. Processes happen in the domain of time, so the question then becomes what is the domain of time for life on earth. We see evolution happening here on earth, so when did that start? And then the question is what was the process for earth? Answering that question is a question of celestial processes arising in planet formation and going back to the beginning of the universe.

Given then that we are the result of processes, how relevant or prevalent is I.D.? Is there any I.D. still left? It would seem that if the I.D. of our creator was irreducible, then we could never replace any part of the design. This would mean we could only add-on to make alterations (adaptation) and this would create more complication from the base simplicity. The neat feature is that any design is completely mutable. You can bury the original design so deep it could not be discerned. What I am describing of course is DNA. However the smallest number of genes for an independent organism is 1500 genes. This would be a boon for I.D. as until there are 1500 genes, there is no way to evolve and combine 1500 genes at once. However, these genes do contain junk DNA, showing that they were created by a process. The only thing I can conclude, and indeed others should be able to conclude, is that we don't understand the process. This is where scientists who don'

at the same time, challenges scientists to be less dogmatic and more open in how they connect to the public;

and is actually funny and fun to watch to boot

... go grab "Flock of Dodos [flockofdodos.com]" on DVD. (Here's the Amazon reviews page for it. [amazon.com]) It's a smart, insightful film that challenges assumptions on both sides of the issue. If it got one tenth of the exposure that the craptastic "Expelled" is getting, the country would be a better place.

The comments here are basically taking the movie at it's word -- that Intelligent Designers are being "expelled" from academia.

This is a lie. The whole movie is a lie. The irony of both invoking Nazis, yet so successfully implementing the "Big Lie" strategy has to set some kind of reprehensible high water mark.

The three "expelled" people presented in the movie -- these are the worst stories the filmmakers could find -- involved a professor who failed to get tenure because he wasn't good enough, a woman who had her contract run out and didn't have it renewed, and them someone who said he was "fired" from the Smithsonian, despite actually being an unpaid research assistant whose term ran out.

This movie makes utterly baseless claims that the academic freedom of ID proponents is under attack.

This is a lie.

Yet, they tell the lie, and then you look at comments about the movie, and you have people assuming that the truth is "somewhere in the middle", or that "both sides need to be considered", or some other trite cliche.

Why do they get a free pass here? Seriously, the production of this movie has been filled with lies by the makers -- these allegedly religious people -- and yet, people still take the movie at face value.

They lied to the interviewees, they attempted to pirate animations used in the movie, after being humiliated during the pre-release screenings they lied to cover it up, they lied to the people who wanted to see screenings -- they're liars.

And then you look at comments here, and people talk like the movie makes valid arguments -- it does not. Aside from lies about academic suppression, it's just one long Godwin -- "there's a very tenuous link between social Darwinism and the philosophy of the Nazis, therefore believing in Evolution leads to the Holocaust".

If, in an argument, someone tells baseless, reprehensible lies about a subject, the truth isn't "somewhere in the middle". The liars are really just lying [richarddawkins.net].

Pirsig has a great line in his novel which I paraphrase as "nobody screams and shouts that the sun will rise tomorrow", it's a given and there is no discussion. It seems to me that the people who are afraid of discussion are the screamers. If people argue that the world is flat there is no need to shout them down and freak out at them etc, if you _know_ something to be true you should not be offended or upset if someone else believes otherwise. If your knowledge (belief/faith) is in doubt perhaps then you would scream/shout/freak out. That is what I've taken from the trailer linked here, it totally reminded me of the fanaticism part of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenence".

The creationism / evolution debate has been done many times here on Slashdot. There'll be comments making one or more of the hundreds of old and refuted creationist arguments [talkorigins.org](1). It's possible that a couple of comments will use arguments even the Answers in Genesis creationist group says not to use [answersingenesis.org](2). Someone will say there's no evidence for Macroevolution and someone else will point out 29 plus evidences for Macroevolution [talkorigins.org](3).

The point of Expelled is to make people think they've learned about the creation / ID / evolution debate, but to feel that Darwin= Holocaust. Note how they interview scientists of all sorts, but they don't interview academics who cover antisemitism in pre-20th century Europe. Even one hint or reminder that, say, Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies [humanitas-...tional.org] in 1543 would ruin the Darwin -->Holocaust propoganda.

----------(1) "evolution requires faith," "Piltdown," "Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals"...(2) "there are no beneficial mutations," "no new species have ever been produced"...(3) Even if there were no fossils, how to explain how biochemistry matches phylogeny? It's one thing to claim the designer re-uses code to explain similarity, but why would a designer reuse broken code?

You need to know Stein's background to see what he's after. Although a conservative, he's also an exceedingly intelligent iconoclast aiming to reveal problem behavior where it's typically not admitted.

His purpose in Expelled is not to promote creationism, either in and of itself or in comparison to evolution. His intention is to point out that SOME OF the scientific community is participating in the same sort of hair-on-fire hysteria as the most vocal creationists. While the latter are widely know and fairly expected to employ this as a tactic, or just emotionalism, the scientific community "should" be above it, but isn't.

He rightly shows that the "evolution/creationist debate" isn't. He shows that it is instead a construct. Creationists claim it in order to put their ideas on equal footing with science, and science unwittingly helps them when some of its members react to what they expect rather than what's actually being said. His movie is a case study in precisely this, both within itself and as a social phenomenon, and you can bet your ass this is exactly what he intended.

It's easy to poke holes in the highly vocal creationists' stance, and quite popular to do so. It's more difficult to poke holes in their scientific counterparts, and supremely unpopular if you assume his intention is to promote creationism. Promoting creationism is his tool, exposing intellectual bigotry is his intention, and before the movie even premiers, he is succeeding admirably.

If one isn't convinced, consider the fact that he's targeting only those that overreact to the situation. For the most part both religious and scientific adherents (and those who hold to both) coexist and even discuss their viewpoints without any acrimony or "debate". They see no contradiction because the two thought systems are orthagonal -- entirely independent and incomparable. It's those in science who can't grasp this due to perceived peer pressure or fear that overreact and so unwittingly lend credence to that which they oppose by the sheer act of opposing it.

And keep in mind that although the movie pokes at one side, that doesn't mean he considers the other side to be right. He's going after the one target too few have the balls to attack. My money says that when it's died down, he'll make a statement that he has no intention of supporting creationism, only that he intended to do what I've described above.

The movie is a masterful piece of agitprop (agitating propoganda). It gets its targets to react wildly to it as though it were their traditional perceived enemy, while its true intent to show that those targets are themselves reacting wildly when they, as the supposed intellectuals, should be reacting with due consideration, if at all. And at this point it doesn't matter if the movie even comes out; it's already done exactly what Stein wants it to.

Um... because evolution can be observed, and any rational mind can understand the mechanisms by which it works, and the magic-man-in-the-sky "theory" make no provision for testing, cannot be evaluated as anything other than wishful thinking, and teaches kids not to engage in critical thinking.

Your willingness to tolerate creationism in school as long as they call it a theory is actually worse than the delusions of the people who put it forward in the first place, because - by themselves - they come across as ignorant loons. You're giving them credibility.

No, it can be observed hour by hour. If you'd like to do a little test, we can expose you to all sorts of little life forms that used to be easy to kill with simple anti-biotics, but which - in some cases, only months later - are now genetically different, and have adapted to survive that treatment. As those bacteria (and in some cases, parasites) reproduce, there are observable mutations involved. Some of those mutations result in an altered version of the critter that happens to tolerate things that might kill those versions that mutated in a different way. If the chief cause of end-of-the-line death in strains of bacteria happens to be anti-biotics, then we're watching that life form, via simple natural selection, adapt its way around that threat. If you don't have the patience to learn how to look at the longer-term histories of species, and can't muster the simple common sense to see how that would impact more complex organisms over time, then just ask any doctor to explain it to you. Hopefully, for your sake, that won't be in the context of actually having such an infection - because, unlike even just a few short years ago, when such bacteria didn't exist, it's getting very hard to kill them without also killing you. Just like everywhere else in nature, a new pressure must be brought to bear on a species that has evolved (rapidly, in this case) to overcome an older pressure.

Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design

They are the same thing - both suggest the hand of an all-powerful imaginary magic super being with a sick sense of humor.

If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns

Don't you see? Of course commonly useful bits of DNA are commonly found. The stuff that works, at the basic level of providing for things like nerve growth, or respiration, or enzyme production, doesn't need to be evolved away from... mutations that shut down things like that tend to kill the offspring, and thus don't get passed along. The stuff that works, stays, and stuff that works better becomes more prominent through simple natural selection. If your ability to live long enough to reproduce depended on your ability to sprint to the nearest tree to avoid being eaten, then a mutation in your DNA that happens to produce a fractionally greater dose of adrenaline when you sense danger will give you an advantage over your brother, who might have a different, but less (for the circumstancecs) useful mutation. Guess who passes along the DNA after the predatory animals have come through your part of the woods? Mr. Faster Tree Climber. It might be a hundred generations before something even slightly as useful crops up again in that particular part of your clan's DNA, but as long as it's an advantage, it gets passed down the line. If its a liability (say, it also happens to increase your sensitivty to the sun, and thus causes early cancer), then it dies off. Of course, you know all of this. You're just invested, for social reasons, in the mythology side of things, and it's awkward for you to admit it.

In truth, I think scientists are afraid. They're afraid that if they admit there are aspects and evidence of design that they will be condoning creation as a whole rather than the simple design aspect.

No, they're just afraid of an entire new generation of kids growing up thinking that supersition, and belief if supernatural cause and effect might endanger our culture's ability to produce rational thinkers. You know, the sort of rationality that allowed us to build the systems over which you're reading this message, right now. You're proposing that we embrace a world view more or less like that which fueled the Dark Ages, or which applauded the burning alive of women, as witches, who knew that willow bark contains aspirin or who gave birth on the wrong day of the week, when it happened to rain really hard an

This isn't a problem as long as you restrict God solely to the metaphysical, which is what most religious scientists do. (This is, I think, the effective stance of Catholicism.) If you don't use religion to make disprovable statements about reality, they're quite compatible.

Umm... Stein is not discussing the Science. But, the Atheistic philosophy of Darwinism that says its all an accident and random.

What exactly is "the atheistic philosophy of Darwinism"? I thought Darwinism was generally used as a (very old fashioned) term for Darwin's theory of evolution, which has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God.

Now I admit there are a lot of atheists out there who understand science just as badly as some Christian fundamentalists and have turned it into some kind of religion, but that says nothing about the validity of the science itself, just like idiot Christians say nothing about the validity of the Christian faith.

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

People do not automatically assume evolution is true. It is a well tested theory that provides a good explanation for the word and has made good and testable predictions. It does not explain everything and does not claim to and is working to find the answers.
Intelligent Design (or as Christopher Hitchens has referred to it Ignorance Deified.) is not even a theory and provides not useful understanding in how life works. If the ID people want to be taken seriously. They can produce good research and put forward a good testable hypothesis that can better explain the world or the liars for Jesus can just STFU.
Why do people assume a completely untested assertion is a legitimate competitor in the marketplace of ideas?

Uh... because there is exactly zero evidence supporting other theories? Because other theories are largely unscientific, untestable, and not falsifiable? Because creationists still don't understand that evidence against one theory do NOT automatically equate to support for an alternate theory*? Because evidence from every branch of science, from astronomy to chemistry to geology to physics to zoology all support the currently accepted theory? You know, those sorts of things kind of tend to make people really, really tired of dealing with folks like Ben Stein, who remain obstinately and willfully ignorant.

(*e.g., if this fruit is not an orange, that does not mean it is automatically an apple... heck, could be a kumquat, for all you know).

Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean?

Evolution can be falsified. Something like a pegasus would be completely impossible under the current theory of evolution. Separate species don't converge, birds and horses cannot breed and horses cannot have genes for a feature evolved further down a different evolutionary path.

Intelligent Design cannot be falsified, therefore it is not science. ID can explain Pegasuses, dragons unicorns and cyclopses just fine. That makes it useless, since that also means it cannot predict anything. Without predictions, you cannot have new scientific insight.

Except there is a discussion in academia, Ben Stein just doesn't like the outcome of that debate so he claims it's "unfair".
Scientific debate isn't the Skull and Bones society, anybody can join in if they have some good points to make and some good arguments to back them up. All I ever hear from folks like Ben Stein is how they are being unfairly excluded from the debate...yet rarely have I actually seen them making any attempt to join in.
Since this is Slashdot, I can't end this post without an analogy...so here goes. Forget we're talking about science and think about the place where you work. Imagine there is someone who shows up late, leaves early and doesn't get a lot done while he's there. Now imagine that person spends basically all his time at the office complaining that it's unfair how he's not getting promoted and that the boss has it in for him. That's how I feel about Ben Stein here.

Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Actually, they do. None of them have been successful in any way, and that's probably why you haven't heard of it. I only know about this because it was part of one of the CBC's Tapestry shows.

Because I can find lots of stories that make me I am glad the crazies here don't express their religion by bombing people... like , in, uh wonderfully enlightened Europe.

Really, do you guys not get the news we do? Burning cars in France, oh I know, the PC word is immigrants. Killing of writers in Europe because they dared to write about someone's god?

What you have here in America is exaggeration. Look at it this way, if its brought up over and over and made to look silly it probably is. The haters need something to jump up and down about to make themselves feel superior and these ID people are a great target. The ID people are not a great percentage, just a convenient target.

It says even more for/. that this qualifies as a story. I guess a few editors need to get their brownie points with the insecure techie crowd... the one that needs to vilify anyone with belief and the willingness to express it. (plus its also good fodder for anti-Bush people who claim some hair brained connection to him however tenous)

mod to me to hell if you like, but it is true that it takes a big does of exaggeration to make ID people out as a representative of America or religious America.

Just because the "establishment" does not want to discuss totally futile nonsense like the squaring of a circle or perpetuum mobiles, this does not mean they have closed minds. Its is just extremely boring and a useless waste of time to go through the same nonsense over and over again.

Creationims is nonsense. It adds nothing to scientific insight. Theism is useless. It adds nothing to scientific insight.

Yes, scientists can be very closed minded and stubborn and even stupid. And "the scientific community" can falsely disregard insights and new ideas for a while. That has happened and still happens all the time.

But creationism is so fundamentally wrong and nonsensical in so many ways that the contrary can be said: somebody actively supporting anything that so fundamentally goes against all scientific rational thinking disqualifies him- or herself as a scientist.

A physicist building a perpetuum mobile should get fired. A biologist teaching creationism or ID should get fired on similar grounds.

Evolution is based in science. It has evidence and is discovered/researched by way of scientific means. People who believe the scientific method can accurately be used to discover and research things can go so far as to say that they believe in them because science supports it.

ID is based on religion and tradition. It does not come from evidence or from any application of science as we define science. It's presented as an alternate explanation evidenced by religious texts and motivations. People who believe in God or religion and believe what their respective religion tells them to believe about creationism or ID can go so far as to say they believe in ID or creationism because their religion supports it.

The real conflict with evolution versus ID is that ID proponents want ID taught in science class. That would be akin to Darwinism and evolution being taught in a psychology or theology class. It's just out of place. Most reasonable people I know on both sides of this can accept that there's a difference between philosophy and science and that they don't need to be mixed and that one is free to take their own beliefs from one, the other, or some combination of both.

The issue I take with this movie is not that it presents ID and/or creationism, but that it makes those who believe in it out to be the victim of oppression because "you can't talk about that in science class" and because the scientific community will shun you for teaching it. Truthfully, the scientific community only wants to make sure it's not presented as science because it devalues work they take seriously. And Ben Stein is using/abusing his reputation for being a very intelligent person convince religious folks that they are being oppressed, so they'll lash out against anyone who says that ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but school is not the place for misrepresenting the beliefs of some or even many people as the result of scientific research.

And finally based on all I've said above about my perspective, my reply to you is that Ben Stein is out to make money and nothing else. If he really believes as you say, then he could have skipped this movie. Of course, evolution is not a "answer for why life exists and why the universe works that way that it does" or anything like that. I watched the preview; it was very clearly edited with a single goal in mind: to victimize those who have religious beliefs counter to accepted scientific theory. He is not pointing out that universities don't allow dissenting views. I can't imagine there exists a university without theology or psychology classes to discuss creationism and ID very thoroughly. The failure here is not for professors to teach ID or creationism, but for science professors to validate any education based on ID or creationism with scientific evidence.-N

Also, it's time to set up a formal debate with the Flat Earth guys--don't supress them man! You are just biased in your round Earth worldview! Sure, they'll handle themselves just about as well as creationists in such a debate (at least when the real scientists come prepared), but that's no reason not to keep going back and debating it over and over again.